heuristically_alone wrote:Things Im thinking of from most important to least:

Do I really have to be on time to work every single day?

Is it too dangetous to practice card tricks while driving?

Forgot to charge my phone overnight

Is it weird to ask the younger sister on a date of an older sister that once asked me out?

I should do my taxes this week

Maybe someday I'll remember to eat breakfast

NoNot if you have a self-driving carThat's why you should always have a USB charge port in your car and a USB charger in your briefcaseHow young? Does she like her older sister? Do you?Naaaaahh, you still have 12 days to procrastinateThat's why there are drive-thru junk food stops.

I must have eaten about 4-5000 apples which sounds like a lot but it's actually not even a truckload. I would tell you how many crates it would be but I got distracted trying to find the optimal packing solution.

Today struck a conversation with someone new and asked them how many apples they've have. Got a blank stare, then the response "at least 10".

I seriously ponder now how many apples I've had in mu life. I ate lots as a kid, but not so much now. I'd say a bare minimum would be at least one a month of my entire life since turning one, so at least 312. I need to eat more apples.

I was sat on a bench, today, busy browsing things and trying to set up one mobile device with information from another, and someone sat next to me, immediately saying he was worried about his bus being diverted, for reasons (for the diversion, that is) that I never discovered. A simple soul, shall we say, but I've never been forced nor prevented from being friendly to people based on simplicity or otherwise. Even in the big city,. I offered to check the bus online (surprised him, I didn't take any of his initial approach to mean "this person will find out what I want to know", it was just 'lucky' that he got me.

Quickly found out that the bus he wanted wasn't even expected at the stops that it was supposed to arrive at (first by checking the stops involved, then by checking the bus and following that bus's timetable listing of stops, just in case I was choosing the stop wrong the first way), and didn't seem likely that the bus mentioned was running though several alternatives were (between where we were and the destinatiin, maybe 2½ miles away - I'd have walked!). Apologised, and tried to get back to what I was doing (even had earphones in, should have been a heavy hint even though they were just playing talk radio as a background to my previously solo electronic meditations) but the 'conversation' kept going even when I was slow to respond due to tricky device restartings.

He asked my name, I gave a version of my name (a practiced but vague shortening, not what family, friends or colleagues call me, but I can respond to it if it comes out of nowhere) and rather expected to get his namr in response. Maybe I was being a simple sort, not directly asking "and yours?", but I think he just assumed I knew him unless I asked as I got nothing. Except worrying about his friend (possibly his minder) who had been close by him when he arrived but had gone off to a shop. And worrying about the bus that didn't exist, and then worrying about one of the alternate buses that did exist. (I'd found the first arrival was in seven minutes, the next in thirty-seven, to the bus stop two minutes' walk away. For me, I don't think he thought he'd make it, and was always pointing about 30° off the actual direction to it when it was brought up in conversation, out of sight as it was, which I found inexplicable.) And he didn't want to go off without the friend. And he was also worrying about his prescription thar thet had tried to collect the day before but had been told had not been signed, and by the time they got back to <next town over>, tomorrow, that'd be all sorted out.

It took a while for the friend to return, and I got to pack them off to the stop they needed with about 20 minutes to spare, and I was left feeling that I had failed to communicate properly, but probably only I knew that. To my un-named companion I was probably either forgotten about the moment the (alternate) bus came along or forever remembered as "nice <insert name here> who tried to help with the timetables". I think, on balance, I marginally improved the world (which is as much as I normally hope for), neither setting it afire with my nobilic presence nor making my presence known by setting it aflame. But with the possible baseline of leaving it as I found it (another acceptable outcome - take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints).

It's a shame that this was the only Real Life™ conversation of note, today, but given my schedule and ecommunications link to everyone else who matters (vocationally or socially) and even taking the self-serve tills at the supermarket (decided purely on queue-length, I'd have smalltalked briefly with a human if enough humans had been on duty to maintain a short enough queue).

And I bought zero apples today. And I have bought maybe zero apples this year. Though I ate some apple (sliced, as part of a dessert) on Sunday, as I recall. Do I need to factor processed apples into my already difficult lifetime-apple-consumption calculations, do you think? Do I ignore 'sauced' apples (including apple-doughnut fillings, and apple turnovers) yet retain the sliced one mentioned? Do I back-calculate the number of apples from "number of days during which I have not seen a doctor", given their medic-repellent qualities? How do I know that I have not passed a doctor in the street, though? It's not like they wear white coats and dangle stethoscopes from around their necks all the time (I suspect), so that's a lot of days that I may not have eaten an apple during, and it was only the turnovers that stopped them from approaching me in the crowd, them instead passing on by once they detected the trace residual daily dose of apple that they thought might have applied. Those devious malusphobic doctors.

One thousand, two hundred, and... wait, do you mean to ask how many individual apples I've eaten any of, or apples I've eaten all of, or apples that I ate all of that anyone ate, or should I be pro-rating apples by how much of the edible part of them I've eaten? I assume I shouldn't consider apples that had been processed before I got them, and... wait, was that a rhetorical question?

Wee Red Bird wrote:I'm from Scotland, so unlikely to be in three figures.

Aye, but all those three figures are definitely marinaded in Iron Bru, deep-fried, coloured half blue with stripes, served with a claymore-sliced haggis on a tartan-patterned pewter plate atop a curling stone, to the sound Proclaimers songs being played on the pipes by a Buckfast-inebriated Wee Jimmy Krankie (who, incidentally, doesn't have anything under their kilt!) whilst being ceremonially thwacked by one of Paw Broon's slippers to the tempo of a McGonagall 'poem'.

Is it just me or are there more of these "I find ordinary human beings confusing" posts nowadays?

I used to be a big one for striking up conversations with strangers. In my defence I was living in China and trying to improve my Chinese, and travelling in taxis quite often where talking to the driver was the done thing. Additionally, I was single in those days.

In the United States, the average yearly apple consumption is about 17 pounds (7.7 kg) of fresh apples per capita. Apples weigh between 0.30:0.70 lbs (0.136:0.317.5 kg). That's somewhere between 24-57 apples per person per year.

Roughly 500-1710 for the average person in their twentiesRoughly 720-2280 for the average person in their thirtiesThe average person will eat somewhere between ~1900 to ~4500 apples in their lifetime, at current life expectancy of 78 years.

The person who eats an apple a day will eat 28,470 apples in their lifetime.

scharb wrote:In the United States, the average yearly apple consumption is about 17 pounds (7.7 kg) of fresh apples per capita.

That’s way more than I thought it would be. That’s like 2 a month... I guess I might be biased because I don’t like apples very much and I don’t live in an apple growing region, but it’s still seems like a lot.

pkcommando wrote:It was a sad day when I learned that you can't win a 'How Many [X] In This Jar?' contest by answering >1. I feel like I was cheated, but I'm not sure where to direct my complaints.

You can win with that answer, just not with a significant number of other entrants. The guy who guesses >100 is usually going to beat you.

In general, a technically incorrect answer that's within an order of magnitude is a better answer than a technically correct answer that spans multiple orders of magnitude.

Of course, when it comes to attempting to win, things get more interesting when you get to see previous guesses before you make your own. If you have no information about other people's guesses, then your best strategy is to pick the number you think has the best chance of being correct. If you do know what others have guessed, then there's a trade-off between what value you think is most likely, the sizes of the gaps between previously picked numbers (your guess claims roughly half the gap between the existing guesses on either side), and how many people are likely to guess after you (what's currently a large gap is likely to end up broken up into smaller gaps by the end of the day). Making a guess close to what you think the right value's most likely to be is still solid, but adjusting to hit a larger gap gets more attractive as the day progresses.

Wee Red Bird wrote:I'm from Scotland, so unlikely to be in three figures.

Aye, but all those three figures are definitely marinaded in Iron Bru, deep-fried, coloured half blue with stripes, served with a claymore-sliced haggis on a tartan-patterned pewter plate atop a curling stone, to the sound Proclaimers songs being played on the pipes by a Buckfast-inebriated Wee Jimmy Krankie (who, incidentally, doesn't have anything under their kilt!) whilst being ceremonially thwacked by one of Paw Broon's slippers to the tempo of a McGonagall 'poem'.

At least you didn't mention the sheep.I'll be in the corner, sitting on my bucket.

Sheep are slightly more "Aberystwyth" than "Aberdeen", though, in my mind. The Celtic tribes as a whole (and Kiwis?) might all reputedly gain enjoyment from the use of the velcro gloves, but mind your Ps and Qs!

(Stags and grouse and various eagles and red squirrels and pine martens and wildcats might have crept into that mash, but didn't.)

Soupspoon wrote:Sheep are slightly more "Aberystwyth" than "Aberdeen", though, in my mind. The Celtic tribes as a whole (and Kiwis?) might all reputedly gain enjoyment from the use of the velcro gloves, but mind your Ps and Qs!

(Stags and grouse and various eagles and red squirrels and pine martens and wildcats might have crept into that mash, but didn't.)

There was the old survey conducted around the UK as to how they 'did' their sheep.From Cornwall came the answer of "hind legs inside your wellies and front legs over a wall."From Wales came the answer of "hind legs inside your wellies and front legs over a wall."From Aberdeen came the answer of "hind legs inside your wellies and front over your shoulders.""Why not over the wall like everyone else?""What, and miss out on all the kissing?"